Dilip D’souza quotes,
Yes, Babar must have come to Ayodhya, he must have stumbled on a ruined structure and asked what it was. He must have been told that it is the birthplace of Ram and Lakshman – ‘then it is pavitra bhoomi (sacred land). There should be ibaadat (worship) in such a place. Prayers and devotion. Raise a mosque here’. And thus a Babri Masjid must have come to be.[link]
Then he asks: Why is this less believable than the stories about Babar demolishing an existing Ram Temple.
Hmmm. Why not extend it a little further? Babar was 12, sitting in the gardens of Farghana, when he dreamed of the Pavitra land of Ayodhya and the old Temple ruins. Then and there he decided, I need to invade India and ensure that ibadaat must take place at such a pavitra land. Rest, as they say is history.
Why is this less believeable?
Let me get serious here. The point is that Dilip’ post reveals a deeply flawed thinking which unfortunately has characterised much of the debate over this issue.
Lets assume the worst case scenario, far more likely than the nonsensical story Dilip quotes. That Babar came to Ayodhya, found a Temple and razed it to ground and constructed a Mosque.
So what? What difference does it make? How does that give Hindus the right to demolish the Babri Masjid in the 20th century? How does it matter whether a Temple existed there or not?
Muslims of this century are not responsible for what Babar did. In fact, I don’t even hold Babar responsible-if he did actually demolish the Temple. Thats how people behaved those days. We have made some progress from the 15th century, right?
Instead, we have this nonsense of court cases and one set of historians trying to prove that the Temple existed, another set questioning if Ram existed and blah blah. This has only lead to false hopes and needless acrimony and riots. At the very beginning, the Courts should have thrown out the case. Simply because we cannot waste our time trying to correct historical wrongdoings. What has happened has happened. Lets close the bloody chapter and move on.
I have always argued that the only solution is to demolish the ramshackle Hindu temple, by force if necessary, and hand over the site to Muslims-so they can reconstruct the Babri masjid. What Babar (allegedly) did cannot be corrected but what happened in 1992 certainly can be. Because we know it happened.
And thats what makes it believable!
Filed under: Culture/Society, Media/Blog watch, Religion
[...] One socialist eminence who calls himself a “Typist” writes an apology to Babar, and another–unsure if he’s a socialist–in an attempt to answer the Typist, pens a longer, more insipid apology. [...]
I must say I agree with Ravindra on this. Whether you agree or not, this a definite case of duplicity on your part.
To quote him quoting you….
“…we cannot waste our time trying to correct historical wrongdoings”
“..I have argued for reservations only to correct historic wrong doings.”
Two totally contradicting statements. Yes, there is a whole lot of added context here. But you are selectively accepting or rejecting parts of history (however doctored it may be), based on something I am not aware of (your preconceived notions perhaps).
About my thoughts on this, I believe the govt has no role to play in religious matters. Who owns the land? Whoever has right to the property can do whatever he/she wants with it. If the govt. owns it, it should use it for its own purposes. Maybe something like Ruchira Paul has suggested. Wishful thinking, I know.
I cant believe this Zakir Naik guy. I cant believe people take him seriously. He deserves no attention.
And a final note on the Template: Much better than the earlier holiday Template.
I feel you boys have to drive your energies on the subject in hand, i.e. unnecessary tussle over a piece of land that has historically unparalleled lineage, instead of running amok borrowing many other issues n demanding similar perspective from an individual…..
linear n singular n parochial…key words. .J
Jyothsnay
Please dont alienate us from the chosen path of getting “confused”
If I start doing what you feel I should do, I wouldnt be commenting here, would I?
You feel we should not run amok on the “chosen path” of getting confused and instead concentrate our energies on the subject in hand – “unnecessary tussle over a piece of land that has historically unparalleled lineage” (in your own words). This is something we all knew. If we merely concentrate upon that one subject, Confused’s whole post becomes unequivocal. What then will be so special or unique or important for us readers to read and comment here?
My disagreement was with Confused’s reasoning and thus the conclusion drawn – build a mosque. Please leave me the freedom to agree or disagree with a post I read and to decide my own “subject at hand”.
Terrific post confused. Agree with you as close to completely as I can get.
It would be even better (IMO) if you could avoid haste in getting to “ABC is an XYZ” kind of labeling but I kind of realize that it is your style to say stuff straight as you see it.
regards,
Jai
Confused,
Yes, the demoliton of the Babri Masjid was illegal, and its perpetrators must be prosecuted. However, the fact is that whether we wish it or not, the original structure has been destroyed.
The question we need to deal with is, what do we do with the land. First, whom does it belong to? If it is private property, who is the owner? If it is public property, then what is the opinion of the public? I am led to believe, from the large majority of Hindus in India, and the kind of popularity that the ram janmabhoomi movement brought for the BJP, that the majority of the public favours a temple in Ram Janmabhoomi. It automatically follows that the government should facilitate the construction of a temple there.
By doing this, we shall not be shielding the goondas of the saffron brigade from justice. The act that the VHP committed was illegal. It is not necessary that destroying the remnants of the mosque be illegal forever. An amendment to the ASI act that makes an exception for Babri Masjid and allows the construction of a Ram temple at the site might be passed at some future point of time, and I would support such an amendment.
In response of the debate about historic wrongs, I would like to say that demolishing the masjid is not a punishment to the muslims for the crimes of their forefathers. It is a response to the aspirations of the present generation of indians.
This is not to say that in the event of a hindu nationalist party like the BJP getting a majority, they ought to be allowed to demolish all places of worship other than temples. Firstly, there are property rights that have to be respected. Secondly, I also believe that there is something like traditional use rights, which means that any community that has been using a natural resource for a long time automatically gets some right over it. Fishermen, for example, ought to have some kind of joint ownership of the river. However, in the case of the babri Masjid, the fact that the mosque has not been in use for more than 70 years must mean that any such rights no longer exist and the state is free to put the land to any use it chooses to put it to.
Ravi
I was hinting at Shadows n someone (a teaser campaign at my friends) ! u r not at all in the vicinity….yes, I do agree with you.
extending apologies…Jyo
Jyothsnay
Ah well, my mistake then. I am sorry.
Gaurav,
Sorry for missing your earlier comment. No need to apologize. Alls good.
Shadows,
You say I am an apologist for Babar. Hardly, all I am saying is that Babar must be judged by the values of those times. Social enlightment and progress don’t happen in a day-they are a step by step process just like scientific advancement. Or take another example, in medieval Europe, hangings were a source of public joy, a sort of family picnic. Now, w cant call them barbaric-thats how everyone behaved those days. I am not one in support of rewriting history-if Babar demolished Temples, thats how it must be read as long as we understand the context.
Second, I am consistent in this approach-I am very much against people who claim they should be allowed to behave in a certain way because thats what their Holybooks teach. My position has always been-if those books are not consistent with the values I hold dear-I don’t care what they say.
Third, your point about time line is an important one. However, sometimes history itself tells us what should we do. Lets take Pakistan for example. Should we still burden ourself with partition and not normalize our relationship? No, but should we forgive the bomb blasts? Hell no!
re trackback-
One point- I am not a socialist. Thanks!
Ravi,
While disagreements are welcome, I would think that duplicity is too strong a word to use- it signifies a vested interest on my part. Perhaps contradictory would have been sufficient to convey your angst.
Anyway, coming back to your point. Yes, the added context makes all the difference. As I explained to Ravindra, we are dealing with a)vicious b)continuing discrimination. This discrimination does harm the chances of them competing equally with others and hence they do in my view deserve a leg up.
Say, if there had been an isloated example of discrimination or if it had stopped in the 15th century or even the 19th century, I would have never advocated reservations.
Are they the best way to help? Hell no! But since no on really wants to fix the problems, this is the best we can do.
The case of OBC reservations on the other hand is completely different because the case there is some weird concept of representation. By that yardstick, the first claimaint should be women.
Jai
Thanks. Your point is well taken, I should probably avoid it. I do try you know…
KRC,
Yes, if it is private land, then of course the owner should decide.
However if it is public land, then the Temple has been built illegally. I don’t know if the majority of India wants to see a temple, but even if it does, it cannot do so by trampling the rights of a minority. However, if Muslims were to give up their claim, I would have no objection if a temple was built.
On property rights, see this post on Retributions.
The question here is not just of property rights, but of faith. I don’t agree with the solution you have proposed but yes, the way in which the VHP and all the others went about demolishing the temple was wrong. It was illegal.
If we apply the same logic, then the dispute over Jerusalem would not exist at all. I don’t mean this as a personal insult but those of us who simply say, “let’s forget about all this temple-mosque business, what is a religious structure anyway?” may not feel that same passion or devotion towards a structure or idol as many devout people do. The fact of the matter is, whether a temple is constructed or not, the really devout Ram-bhakts think of Ayodhya as Ramajanmabhoomi.
Likewise, Muslims who hold the mosque as sacred will always do so, whether you build a hospital or school or whatever.
We had better acknowledge that there wll be heartburn for the religious. By trying to build a secular structure such as a school or hospital without the religious structure in place, we are only going to sweep the issue under the carpet, not resolve it.
We may never understand what is so special about the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem to the Jews and what is so great about the holy mosque in Jerusalem to the Muslims but Jews, Muslims and Christians, especially Jews and Christians, hold Jerusalem to be a sacred land, a place central to their beliefs, their ancient history and ancestors.
Okay, let me give another example. The Taliban have recently destroyed the Bamiyan Buddha statues. There is a parallel between what Babar did and what these guys in Afghanistan did. If, in the future, some Muslim extremist builds a mosque in its place and after, say a 100 years, Buddhists want to revive their ancient heritage in that place, should we just let bygones be bygones? The truth is, the Buddhists’ freedom of religion has been violated by the Taliban. The least Afghan Muslims could do in this hypothetical future case, is at least apologize just like Japan apologized to China for World War 2 atrocities.
My two cents: Hindu and Musilm leaders should have a dialogue and eventually find some compromise through peaceful means. Maybe they could have a joint place of worship in the spirit of religious harmony. Neither the courts nor the legislature can deliver a satisfactory verdict because the problem itself is in the realm of faith, not in a secular property-rights zone.
I think it’s not only farcical but distressing if we still have to waste so many man hours on issues like Babri Masjid. When we have issues like these(the link) howling at us. Take a look at it guys, and construe whether the amount of time the people at national level or at state level are spending on the temple issue is worth even a single penny?
http://origin.ndtv.com/topstories/showtopstory.asp?slug=Thane+farmers+face+harsh+life&id=21014&category=National
I think every religion is a philosophy, which grew out of a particular social order. It was not only influenced by the requirements of time, but also by the cultural and the intellectual makeup of the society. Therefore, not only has religion outlived the function it was enacted for, but also to a certain extent it has become redundant. And with the advent of the commercialism and politicization of every religion, it has become a major facet influencing world order in present times. Corrupt and unscrupulous people are not only using it as an instrument to fulfill their vested interests, but also are twisting the very meaning with which a religion was founded. People world over are wagging war in the name of God and religion. So not only, every religion be declared defunct, but it should be proscribed, if we want the survival of mankind.
“all I am saying is that Babar must be judged by the values of those times”
All right. So I am sure you have a list of mosques or churches demolished by Hindus in last 800 years.
Why turning coy brother !
confused,
my pov on reservations is that if done it should be solely on the basis on financial need and not based on caste or religion. and even then there should be some merit in the person being given the job/seat in college etc.
cheers & merry xmas.
“I saw that interview long time back. The guy’s a sick bastard.”
Confused,
I’m sure people on both sides of this debate share that opinion about this guy – BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS!
Could it be because he is so disarmingly candid (and hence foolish) about his views that it spoils the carefully crafted oh-so-secular-oh-so-peaceful image that is being sought to be crafted about Islam? (Whew, I almost outdid Jyo in that sentence!)
Pray, WHAT ELSE could be a rational and convincing answer to the question posed to him – about why non-Muslims cannot build places of worship in an Islamic state but the vice versa is true?
Re. … those of us who simply say, “let’s forget about all this temple-mosque business, what is a religious structure anyway?” may not feel that same passion or devotion towards a structure or idol as many devout people do. …
I am not an atheist or agnostic but a believing, ‘practising’ Hindu. I respect the sanctity of a temple but not one that has been built by tearing down another. It does not matter to me how this other building may have itself come about.
Re. non-Muslims not being allowed to build their temples in an Islamic state, I dont know if that is a fact, but if it is, it does not bother me enough to change my stand here. Thats them, not us.
I know of quite a few friends who too are in the same boat. The VHP does NOT speak for us.
regards,
Jai
Re: “It does not matter to me how this other building has come about. ”
I am not saying that a temple or any other structure should be built by tearing down another religious structure. But, in the interest of fairness, why should a mosque that has been built by tearing down another structure be legitimate either?
Historical wrongs cannot be undone. But, the least we could do is acknowledge them and work towards reconciliation. Both Hindus and Muslims could try to work out a solution that meets the aspirations of millions of devotees. Just as a Muslim who finds Babri Masjid sacred has every right to worship there, a Hindu who finds Ranjanmabhoomi sacred also has a right to worship there. This is not about VHP or Congress or BJP. This is about the rights of common people and an attempt to heal festering wounds.
Do not destroy Babri Masjid, expand it to accomodate the temple goers or build a temple adjoining it so that this issue is not politicised again. A plaque or a
small museum could be added to explain the history of the place. The site is very important both in terms of medieval and modern Indian history, especially the latter.
I just read that children in Tsunami-hit areas are finding education as an endearing experience, something born out of pain, having lost their parents/mothers/fathers and siblings.There’s certainly a felt n recognisable jump in the pass % stats and a few children are pursuing professional courses-Engg, MBBS…this exemplifies the undying spirit of human, the survival instinct, the verve to fight back against the severe loss one would desire to avoid…
I feel we should (especially politicians n thought leaders like eminent journalists) divert the forces in this direction…a tiny lesson to learn from these kids.
‘The Chalice of life”..nothing came of it. It’s our business to empathise, not to create…fellows!
Confused,
Guess we should wait to be slaughtered while our poor downtrodden muslim brothers get “socially enlightened”
BTW, I am not concerned about temple or mosque. What I am more concerned about is our freedom and rights are being trampled upon in the name of secularism. Its us who are still suffering.
If discrimination is cited as a reason for quotas for lower castes (note – timeline again, who decides), then we were oppressed by muslims for over 800 years. In fact , we should be given more priority by that logic, and muslims should actually not be given reservations. But we dont want any quotas, do we?
Confused, whatever the reasons you give, you are very wrong here. Hey why demonize Hitler (Godwins Laws) – he was behaving like a pre WW2 military dictator, wasnt he? Social conditions you see. Until Lincoln, slavery in US was legal, approx 200 years ago. A few years down the line, would you say the same about Modi ?? (Desi Godwins Laws – replace Hitler with Modi)